Why Is Escaping Data Considered So Magical?
in [Python]
|
Prev: GDAL-1.7.1 : vcvarsall.bat missing
Next: improving python performance by extension module (64bit)
From: Aahz on 26 Jun 2010 22:53 In article <i06cju$qqa$2(a)lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >In message <mailman.2123.1277522976.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Tim Chase >wrote: >> >> On 06/25/2010 07:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> ... > >I see that you published my unobfuscated e-mail address on USENET for all to >see. I obfuscated it for a reason, to keep the spammers away. I'm assuming >this was a momentary lapse of judgement, for which I expect an apology. >Otherwise, it becomes grounds for an abuse complaint to your ISP. You are double daft. First, I completely disagree with you about it being abuse; from my POV anyone posting to Usenet should do so with an unobfuscated address. Secondly, you are wrong about Tim publishing your address unless you intended to follow up to a completely different post, and you owe *him* an apology for a false accusation. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "If you don't know what your program is supposed to do, you'd better not start writing it." --Dijkstra
From: Chris Rebert on 26 Jun 2010 22:55 On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <> wrote: > In message <mailman.2123.1277522976.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Tim Chase > wrote: > >> On 06/25/2010 07:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> ... > > I see that you published my unobfuscated e-mail address on USENET for all to > see. I obfuscated it for a reason, to keep the spammers away. I'm assuming > this was a momentary lapse of judgement, for which I expect an apology. > Otherwise, it becomes grounds for an abuse complaint to your ISP. Will you give it a rest already with these threatening messages? Why are you still using this only-partially-obfuscated address with USENET anyway? This has happened twice before, it will doubtless happen yet again. Just use an /entirely invalid/ From address like some other posters do. I can't believe you have a form letter for this... Regards, Chris -- Public addresses eventually going bad is a *fact of life*; plan ahead accordingly.
From: Tim Chase on 26 Jun 2010 23:23 On 06/26/2010 09:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<mailman.2123.1277522976.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Tim Chase > wrote: > >> On 06/25/2010 07:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> ... > > I see that you published my unobfuscated e-mail address on USENET for all to > see. I obfuscated it for a reason, to keep the spammers away. I'm assuming > this was a momentary lapse of judgement, for which I expect an apology. > Otherwise, it becomes grounds for an abuse complaint to your ISP. I'm sorry...you've got your knickers in a knot? That your spam filters seem to be insufficient? That you don't have a custom throwaway address for such public dialogs? For preventing an "undeliverable" bounce message that your bogus address would have caused (if your mail provider is RFC-compliant; though your mail provider may kindly be breaking RFC by disabling "undeliverable" responses to prevent back-scatter spam)? Is the abuse charge "waah, he replied to my actual email rather than the false one I spoofed"? I'm not sure an abuse complaint to my ISP would net you anything since the exact out-bound headers show nothing abusive, only the correcting of an invalid TLD to prevent a bounce (and a distinct lack of USENET references in the original message that went to you and CC'ed python-list(a)python.org). Having regularly used python.list(a)tim.thechases.com unobfuscated for easily over 5 years, the spam to this address has been almost negligible (or so effectively dealt with by Thunderbird's spam filters that I've never noticed it). -tkc
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 27 Jun 2010 00:15 In message <pan.2010.06.26.11.04.22.328000(a)nowhere.com>, Nobody wrote: > Ask anyone with a surname like O'Neil, O'Connor, O'Leary, etc; they've > probably broken a lot of web apps *without even trying*. Last I checked, I couldn't post comments on freedom-to-tinker.com.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 27 Jun 2010 00:17
In message <roy-854954.20435125062010(a)news.panix.com>, Roy Smith wrote: > I recently fixed a bug in some production code. The programmer was > careful to use snprintf() to avoid buffer overflows. The only problem > is, he wrote something along the lines of: > > snprintf(buf, strlen(foo), foo); A long while ago I came up with this macro: #define Descr(v) &v, sizeof v making the correct version of the above become snprintf(Descr(buf), foo); |